The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

Originally Posted by Skybird

Identity is more than just papers, and a stamp on them. MUCH MORE. You do not become American or German or French or whatever just by getting a new ID card. There is a historically grown background story - and it weighs heavily.

I agree, and I struggle to understand why so many other people don't get this fact. One example are German crime statistics. Some Gutmenschen claim that "Just as many Germans commit certain crimes as Muslims/migrants." and they hint to some statistics that heavily play in their favor by discounting those who are "German" - although they are culturally from wherever.
That is such nonsense and for me it counts where someone is from instead of what a piece of paper says. "Chello, me Ahmed, me German!" Uh, sure... now tell me about your German culture and herita... oh, right.

If I get the US citizenship tomorrow, I'm still not 'American', nor will I ever be. I am German, born and bred.
Saying anything else is nothing but feels over facts political correctness or to push certain agendas. And it has to stop.

And sorry for double post but I think that's worth it:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

If I get the US citizenship tomorrow, I'm still not 'American', nor will I ever be. I am German, born and bred.
Saying anything else is nothing but feels over facts political correctness or to push certain agendas. And it has to stop.

That's mostly true, its just that regarding culture, mentality, historic origin, while there are differences between Germans/Europeans, and Americans, these two still are relatively close to each other, last but not least due to the shared history and the mass migration from Europe to the US. Although this closeness may change over time due to the influx of present mass migration. Thats why we usually do not make big deal of migrants living in our middle coming from our direct neighbouring country, for example. Its easy for both sides, one already is very close, and not just in space. The greater the cultural differences and the differences in historically grown identity, the more difficult it becomes. If then the other comes from a culture that takes a very supremacist stand on all other cultures and implies they must be subjugated anyway, like Islam does, then it is even worse., because integration by the migrant gets actively refused in deed and thought. And it explains why migrants from diffrent countries and cultures must be described separately in statistics. in germany, migration from asia for exampel does exist, to some extend, there are Chinese, Japaness, Koreans living here, Vietnamese as well. It goes unnoticed, almost, becausue they cause no problems, they come from quite a different culture, but that culture is not as aggressive and supremcaist, as Islam. They fit in. Dutch and Danes, French and Spaniards, Poles, Brits and even the occasional american - no big deal, there are difference, but they are minor, often one even chuckles about them together. This shared intersection is what makes the West actually "the West". But the moment the migration group comes from any Muslim country, no matter which one, the indices in warning categopries of statistics go up steeply and integration flies out of thew window in most cases.

Thats why it is also idootic if German spocilaistsa compare the waves of migrants coming now from Northafrican Islamci countries and the ME, with the war refugees Germany let in after WWII. Those war refugees were comign from places that culturally are so very much closer to European and Germn culture, than the Islamci world ever was, and most of those refugees were the descendants of germans who had moved to Easteuropean coutnries and Russia in centuries before anyway, so already had German roots anyway, also were close to the German language, and of course althogh Catholicism and Orthodoxy are twop traditons now, both nevertheless share the same Christian fundament.

To expect that so many Islamic migrants can be integrated and to think Germans can do that, by referring to the example of the post-WWII mass exodis to Germany, is a bad joke. Both events have NOTHING in common, nothing. Not to mention that Germany back then faced what it has caused itself (the war), while we are not responsible for 1000 years of Islamic tradition forming and corruption in their own countries and the ways in which these people and their forefathers laid the basis for the ongoing tyrannies they then lived under. Its their cultural evolution they suffer from, or better the lack of cultural evolution.

All these implications should be healed by newspapers not calling a Muslim suspect as Muslim suspect or an Arab an Arab, but by talking of "a person" only who did something? A "man"? A "citizen"? I think we are more than just zeroes for women and ones for males, we are a bit more feature-enriched than just this, aren't we.

Its so idiotic. I still recall how the police in Cologne some years ago released a warrant in the newspapers, asking for hints on a group of male persons who were to be seen at a given time at a given place - but avoiding just any description that referred to actually helping to recognise them - because they were from the ME. And there were so many examples like this, although after the sexual mass attacks in Cologne half a year ago now there seems to be a shy drop in self-gagging at least in some media.

A bit off topic, but also, a bit not off topic. Obama once again carefully avoided to identify the origin of Muslim terrorism, this time in Oregon: Islamic ideology. Unacceptable.

[em2nought]

So what was the FBI's budget last year because if questioning this guy twice is the best they can do maybe we should just shut them down. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/Ant5/lifelock-fix-it

[Skybird]

French special commandos shot dead an assumed-to-be terrorist in Paris who before had shot a police officer and took that officer'S family as hostage. After storming the house, they also found a woman (I assume the mother and wife), and an living kid. The attacker declared himself to be loyal to IS. Islamic ideology had nothing to do with it.

[Oberon]

Every ideology can be used as a weapon, but what is a weapon other than a tool to be used by the holder?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by em2nought

So what was the FBI's budget last year because if questioning this guy twice is the best they can do maybe we should just shut them down. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/Ant5/lifelock-fix-it

For some reason video (if there is such, I see only commercials) doesn't work for me so I would appreciate if someone could provide summary on content.

Anyway I would like remind people that FBI isn't secret police as used by dictators to deal with troublemakers. They can't imprison anyone indefinately so unless they get sufficiet evidence they have to release suspect. In my opinion it is very good thing it is that way.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

For some reason video (if there is such, I see only commercials) doesn't work for me so I would appreciate if someone could provide summary on content.

Anyway I would like remind people that FBI isn't secret police as used by dictators to deal with troublemakers. They can't imprison anyone indefinately so unless they get sufficiet evidence they have to release suspect. In my opinion it is very good thing it is that way.

Just like to add to that:

Considering the number of possible threats to the US each year (it is a rather large number before being categorized according to plausability and risk), law enforcement and intelligence agencies have a monumental task not only tracking each threat as they are identified, but in identifying them in the first place. You can't just call someone up and ask them if they are plotting and scheming. You need to be able to trace them from, and to, known threats or activities such as financial activities and communication that are linked to known threats. This, needless to say, only works if there is an organisation behind the plotting and scheming. It does not work when individuals, or small groups of individuals for whatever reason, suddenly get the idea of committing an act of terror. Lone wolves are notoriously difficult to identify. One example is Breivik, the mass murderer behind the shootings and bombing in Norway.

The Norwegian police's intelligence did catch on to his purchases of bomb making materials that weren't necessarily illegal on their own, but this guy acted on his own, with noone but himself involved. A recipe for purchased electric wire is not enough to arrest him when there are no other signs of that would come.

In both the latest French incident and in recent US incidents, the men were lone wolves as far as anyone can tell. That they said they consider themselves to fight for ISIS does not imply ISIS had any idea. It does not go both ways by default.

To round it up: To blame the FBI, or any other agency for failing to get these guys before they can commit these murders, is really not fair at all. Lone wolves in particular do have a higher chance of slipping through the many nets that are out there than more organised attackers. The agencies do work 24/7 to get as many as they can but they are not magicians. There are no unicorns or pixies whispering information into their ears. If the plan only exists in one person's mind then it is more of a miracle the times the agencies do successfully identify and arrest the threats before bad things happen.

[Catfish]

^ Very true. The FBI generally stands on legal ground, it is effective and professional.


However i could not resist to post this

Originally Posted by Oberon

Every ideology can be used as a weapon, but what is a weapon other than a tool to be used by the holder?

Yet only Islam is being "used"!
Truly Islam can not be blamed and this poor poor religion of peace, coincidentally once again, was "abused" by some nutcases because... because Buddhism is lame?!

Why is it so hard for you to admit that Islam itself is radical and basically promotes what all these people are doing? Why is it that it is solely Islam, not Christianity or Buddhism etc.? Why is it Islam/religion at all?

Why do people feel the need to defend this sick ideology by any means, no matter the facts?
Genuine question, for I don't understand this kind of behavior at all.
What is your motivation, I wonder? How do you convince yourself that Islam is totally dandy, while news from all over the world contradict you?

You know, if nothing bad would have happened, ever, in the name of religion and especially (exclusively if we talk modern times) Islam, then yeah, sure "what the Hell people!?" but...that is not the case. Is it?

Now, a French cop was murdered, along with his wife.
In Orlando 49 people had to die because Allah is totally akbar and gay people suck.
And who knows what will happen until July 10, when the festivals are over in France.
But sure, poor Islam is just being abused again, nothing to see here, move along citizen and do not leave the PC-queue, move along now...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Every ideology can be used as a weapon, but what is a weapon other than a tool to be used by the holder?

That puts Hitler or Stalin, the KKK or the Khmer Rouge into a completely new light.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yet only Islam is being "used"!
Truly Islam can not be blamed and this poor poor religion of peace, coincidentally once again, was "abused" by some nutcases because... because Buddhism is lame?!

Why is it so hard for you to admit that Islam itself is radical and basically promotes what all these people are doing? Why is it that it is solely Islam, not Christianity or Buddhism etc.? Why is it Islam/religion at all?

Why do people feel the need to defend this sick ideology by any means, no matter the facts?
Genuine question, for I don't understand this kind of behavior at all.
What is your motivation, I wonder? How do you convince yourself that Islam is totally dandy, while news from all over the world contradict you?

You know, if nothing bad would have happened, ever, in the name of religion and especially (exclusively if we talk modern times) Islam, then yeah, sure "what the Hell people!?" but...that is not the case. Is it?

Now, a French cop was murdered, along with his wife.
In Orlando 49 people had to die because Allah is totally akbar and gay people suck.
And who knows what will happen until July 10, when the festivals are over in France.
But sure, poor Islam is just being abused again, nothing to see here, move along citizen and do not leave the PC-queue, move along now...

The highlighted bit.
I'm sorry to say but that is provable not true.
Jewish extremists have committed attrocities alongside muslim extremists like firebombing family homes. They have both committed attrocities alongside Christians and atheists alike.
Buddhism is not innocent either. Look up Ashin Wirathu and the 969 Buddhist Nationalist movement. They talk about things like "race", "racial purity", about restrictions on marriages between Buddhists and Muslims, and boycotts of Muslim-owned businesses. Swap muslim for jew and it's all too familiar. Weirdly enough he apparently likes to see himself as a Burmese Bin Laden... Some red flags should go up here.
And the supporters of this Ashin are no strangers to violence including murder. Do these "gents" represent Buddhism worldwide? Of course not but they are there and doing it all in the name of Buddhism.

To say that Islam is the only religion spreading hate is nonsense. We need to stop making up excuses for our own personal favourites and look at all religions. I can't think of any religion really, among the big ones, that is innocent.

Originally Posted by Von Due

To say that Islam is the only religion spreading hate is nonsense. We need to stop making up excuses for our own personal favourites and look at all religions. I can't think of any religion really, among the big ones, that is innocent.

That isn't what I meant but I sure worded it poorly.
I'm talking context, though.

Look at terror in the name of Islam and you will find it all over the globe, DAILY.
Look at all other Religions combined... mh... get's a little quiet now, does it?

And if you meant to imply that I have a favorite Religion... I'm an atheist and despise every single religion, don't worry. However, it is Islam that tries to conquer this globe and causes 99% of the trouble - or not?

[Catfish]

All bad things can be done "in the name" of someone, or something.
This is the excuse, to do what one does, to perpetrate atrocities and kill.
With religion, it is god or whatever you call him.
With war it is your superior officer who orders you to kill, so you do not need to think about it or be reluctant, you have your justification. For king and country, for god, against evil, you name it.
The art is to find out whether it is real evil, or just a comfortable excuse to let yourself be instrumentalized by some lunatic.

All religions have had their times of killing and suppression. Islam is a -relatively- young religion, and the people are thus in a way closer to its original bloody text, and founder. The bible has similar laws what to do with infidels and the like, but it is not longer being practised.
When and where was the last witch burned? 19th century i think.

Imams and Islam interpreters have not gone through the processes of interpretation, exegesis and abstraction, at least not as far as the 'older' religions have done that. Some do not separate state and religion, demanding a religious law. But not all.

Terrorism can be perpetrated by anyone, with whatever justification. In this contemporary fashion it is islamic religion. During war it is not called terrorism, at least not by the victor.
I am sure man will find another excuse to kill each other, as soon as this current religious fashion dies out. IMHO man himself is the disease.


edit: no muslim with its quarterpound of brain can reasonably support extremism, so a demand to distance themselves from terrorism is fruitless. The real extremists are much too bullheaded, and for the normal peaceful muslim this demand sounds like an insult.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

That isn't what I meant but I sure worded it poorly.
I'm talking context, though.

Look at terror in the name of Islam and you will find it all over the globe, DAILY.
Look at all other Religions combined... mh... get's a little quiet now, does it?

And if you meant to imply that I have a favorite Religion... I'm an atheist and despise every single religion, don't worry. However, it is Islam that tries to conquer this globe and causes 99% of the trouble - or not?

If you look at this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...tc/modern.html
you might notice something peculiar, namely what appears to be a correlation between certain political events, regionally, nationally and globally, and terrorism.

If any religion was the one, true cause for these attacks then we should have seen a steady flow of attacks throughout history yet, that is not what history shows. Sure, you have ancient groups like Nizari Ismalis which were assassins but you can't say that the number of Islamic terrorist attacks have remained close to constant adjusted for population. It have however increased dramatically the last handful of decades, especially after 1945. The religion has not changed I think we can safely say. Something else has changed and that something else is the political and economic balance globally, regionally and nationally. People's daily lives have changed. Their opportunities have changed.

The problem is not a particular religion but fundamentalism, a term incidentally first linked to Christian groups in the 19th and 20th century, that rises when the political/economic situation allows it or even promotes it. I'm not saying fundamentalism equals terrorism because it simply doesn't. What I do say though is that terrorism leaps out of fundamentalism whatever shape or form it takes.

It is not your average Jew who go out to gun down people. It is not your average Christian who go out and gun down people. It is not your average Buddhist that go out and gun down people. It is not your average muslim who go out and gun down people. When the political stability disappears, when the economic stability disappears, that's when things can get nasty for real. When leaders with their own interests show up talking people into a frenzy, that's when things do get nasty for real.

The people behind all these attacks are fundamentalists (obviously not counting the genuine fruitloops) acting according to an interpretation of their own religion not shared by most other of their own religion. The religious leaders who talk the crowd into this are of a varied sort. Some are politically motivated, others are genuinely sure they are right and holy, to some it's about personal power, wealth, freebees at the slave market or in the confessional and some are plain psychotic with a silver tongue.

My point is: Unless we attack fundamentalism wherever it appears, unless we attack the very reasons fundamentalism can rise, as long as we neglect that, we will have terrorist attacks coming from anywhere. Our problem is, we don't want to pay the pricetag that comes with removing those causes so we keep ignoring what we really can't afford to ignore, if we really want to see terrorism on the decline.

PS: In no way did I make any suggestions as to what your religion could be, intentionally that is. It was directed to each and every one of us, all 7+ billion of us and yep, I consider myself an agnostic with some heavy leanings towards atheism but this is really irrelevant.